Dan Riehl devotes three posts to my thoughts and still can’t figure out what I wrote. He also said I write with a Thesaurus beside me. Judging by Mr. Riehl’s wild and crazy personal attacks, that must mean that Dan replies with a dictionary next to his keyboard, struggling to comprehend the meaning of words that any high school drop out in my day would have no trouble deciphering.

I’ll try and keep the syllables under 4 just for you Dan.

What all the hub bub boils down to is that many of you are saying that I am weak and cowardly because I changed my view on the war. In other words, I am not steadfast enough and that I don’t stick with “my principles” thus, making me wishy washy; a “sunshine patriot” as one wag was kind enough to put it.

This is a good criticism, an honest criticism. I have no problem with it. It is based on the excellent notion that standing by what we believe even when things get rocky is the essence of honesty and integrity.

But something happened on the road to Damascus and I changed my thinking. Allow me to explain.

When any of us form opinions – be it on Iraq or whether the Cubs are going to win the 2007 World Series – we base that opinion on an underlying set of assumptions. For instance, an assumption regarding the Cubs is that they haven’t won a World Series since forever and are perhaps the most doggedly jinxed baseball club in Christendom. Other assumptions would include the fact that the ownership rarely does anything right and that Wrigley Field and day baseball saddle the team with a disadvantage. Ergo, my opinion that they don’t have a Tinker’s chance in hell to win it all is based on solid assumptions, grounded in logic and a coherent view of the situation as it exists in baseball, in the National League, and in the eyes of history. The Cubs are toast and I’ll stick by that opinion come hell or high water.

Now suppose it’s late October and high water has arrived; the Cubbies are up in the World Series 3 games to none, needing only one win for the championship. I can still hold the opinion that they haven’t a ghost of a chance to win. But what has changed?

Some of the underlying assumptions are no longer valid, or obsolete, or simply false. Other assumptions remain rock solid. But in maintaining my opinion that there’s no way the Cubs can win, I have had to stretch logic, ignore some facts, concentrate on tangential issues such as perhaps an act of God will halt the Series now before the Cubs can win. In other words, I’m reaching to justify my opinion.

That’s where I found myself a year or so ago with regards to Iraq. Some of the underlying assumptions I had about the war changed. I believed for the longest time that the Administration and the Pentagon had a good idea of what was going on in Iraq and had a viable strategy to deal with the problems there. That assumption proved false. This became apparent when Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney would paint what was happening there in the rosiest of hues – so many schools built, so many clinics opened up, etc. Meanwhile, the insurgency grew, became more vicious, and al-Qaeda began to implement their strategy of pitting Shia against Sunni in order to foment civil war.

Anyone who was reading reports of what was going on in Iraq would more than likely do a double take listening to either one of those gentlemen. Are we talking about the same war? Those of us who have questioned what is happening in Iraq – most of the people that I’ve read anyway – were enormously troubled by this disconnect.

One by one, assumptions I had formed at the beginning of the war and occupation fell victim to changing realities in Iraq. This is not the same place it was 4 years ago nor is it even the same as it was a year ago. And if it has changed – if the facts, perceptions, and reality has changed, what did that do to the underlying justification for my opinions?

Once I began “reaching” to justify my opinions, I got very uncomfortable. The threads of logic became more tenuous the more I examined those pesky assumptions. I realized that many (not all) of my original assumptions were basically obsolete, done in by the cruel logic of domestic politics and a growing realization that the the US military could do everything that was asked of it and more and still come up short thanks to the balking politicians in Iraq, the twisted narrative of the war being spun by the left and the Democrats, Administration failures to implement a strategy that would win the war, and a growing belief that the country was sliding out of control.

So if you’re in my shoes, what do you do? Continue to defend a position you know is becoming untenable as a result of changing realities (and new information not available at the time you formed your original assumptions)? Or do you alter your assumptions and change your opinion?

It could very well be that abandoning long held opinions and beliefs about the war makes me a cowardly wretch. It all depends on how you look at it I suppose. But as I said, I still hold to some of those original assumptions; that Saddam was a potential threat, that the reasons for going into Iraq were basically sound (so much for my new found friends on the left, eh?), and that deposing the murderous tyrant was a good and moral thing to do. I don’t buy in to the left’s narrative regarding Iraq, finding it based on hysterical posturing and bilious phantasms (sorry Dan, couldn’t resist). And I also believe that Iraq is still a central front in the War on Terror (or whatever the Democrats are going to call it).

That said, this is one battle – a battle I sincerely believe we’ve botched as badly as Anzio or Tarawa, or any other blunder made during World War II - and what must be done now in my opinion is try our best to avoid disaster. There will be other battles and we will learn some hard and bitter lessons from this one.

That is, as long as we strive to be honest with ourselves. For me personally, this has meant questioning my beliefs when I thought the circumstances demanded it. If that means I’m “thinking too much” or seeing “too much nuance,” so be it. That is who I am. That is how I write.

As I fully expected, some on the right are in full throated howl over my suggestion that we alter our mission in Iraq. The predictable response of the slack jawed yawpers doesn’t necessarily depress me, although I am not insensate to the barbs . Their personal attacks (in lieu of answering my points with intelligent counters) reveals how truly bereft they are of any understanding of what it will take for the efforts of our troops in tamping down the violence to bear fruit.

Also as I predicted, the left has attacked me for not advocating a complete withdrawal. There are also those who have “congratulated” me for “finally” seeing it there way.

Frankly, that’s hogwash. For more than a year I have been expressing my belief that the Administration’s strategy was not working, that despite the brilliant performance of our troops, any military gains made against he insurgency were lost because of the political inertia that even our best efforts could not affect. The Iraqi government was failing to take the steps necessary to reconcile the various factions and create a viable, democratic state. Just because people vote doesn’t mean democracy is in place. The rifts and divisions in that bloody land are standing in the way of uniting the people behind the idea of nationhood. In order for the idea of “nation” to take hold, there must be an accounting of both ancient history and recent history. And before Iraq can become a nation, Sunnis and Shias will have to look at each other and see a fellow countryman rather than an oppressor or a threat.

Only by accepting the concept of power sharing will the Shia government in Iraq succeed. And only when they are convinced that the Shias are not out to destroy them will the Sunni insurgents lay down their arms and join the government. The sad fact is that the United States military – as bravely as they have carried out their mission – can only create the conditions where this is possible; they cannot unite the factions through any conceivable military action.

What has changed? Clearly, the government of Prime Minister Maliki doesn’t have time to affect the changes necessary that would lead to this reconciliation. By that I mean our efforts at improving security (the largest but by no means the only aspect of our new strategy) will only last as long as we have sufficient troops on the ground to carry out that mission. And the entire point of my article was simple; time is running out. Blame it on the press. Blame it on the Democrats. Blame it on Elvis. The fact is the American people have had enough. And what little support there is for our mission in Iraq will only lessen the closer we get to the 2008 election.

I blame Bush for this. He has been AWOL in using the Presidency as a soap box to consistently, patiently, and honestly explain why we’re in Iraq, what the stakes are, who the enemy is, and why we must fight. His inexplicable silences over the last 4 years – sometimes lasting weeks – allowed the political opposition to hijack the war narrative and twist it for their own political purposes. Every six weeks or so, the President would embark on a 3 or 4 day PR offensive, appearing mostly at military bases and talking up the war. It was never enough. And we’re paying the price for this PR blunder with an American public who have been frustrated with the lack of progress in defeating the insurgency as well as the stalling tactics of the Maliki government.

For in the end, that is where the problem lies. The Prime Minister, the major parties in Iraq (SCIRI, Dawa, the Sadrists) have expressed little interest and less desire in affecting the changes in power sharing, de-Baathification, amnesty, reconciliation, and promised constitutional changes that would alter the political climate and start the Iraqis down the road toward a peaceful society. And again, there is nothing the US military can do to push the government off of square one and get this process moving.

And lest anyone misunderstand me (or, for those of you who simply didn’t bother to read what I wrote) I am not advocating anything more than a token withdrawal of American troops. And that would be as a consequence of cutting a deal with Democrats in Congress who almost certainly would insist on some kind of cutback of troops if they were to sign on to a redefined mission of fighting al-Qaeda, protecting the Iraqi borders (including the Iran-Iraq border), and preventing a humanitarian catastrophe. Only the significant presence of US troops will prevent the massacre of Sunnis by Shias hell bent on revenge as well as those who wish to make Iraq “Sunni free.” That same presence would probably also prevent a general Middle East war as well.

So those who believe I was signing on to the Democrats plan for phased withdrawal are simply wrong. In fact, I think it would be a blunder that would make the blunders made the previous 4 years look tame by comparison. Only those wishing the absolute worst for the United States, Iraq, and the Middle East would advocate such a course of action. Better that we maintain a strong presence in Iraq and allow the various factions to work out their own solutions to the problems facing the country.

My point about dealing with the Democrats is simple common sense. If we are going to stay in Iraq with the numbers of troops necessary to help train the Iraqi army, kill al-Qaeda, and protect the Sunnis, the Democrats are going to have to be aboard so that the political will for such a mission can coalesce and form around both Congressional and White House leadership. For this to happen, Bush will have to make the first move. I’m not expecting much even if Bush were to wear sackcloth and ashes and knee walk up the Capitol steps. But given the alternative – ultimate Democratic success down the road in pushing arbitrary timetables for a withdrawal of the bulk of our troops – what has the President got to lose?

Nothing I’ve written here or in my other post is very original. The political conditions in Iraq are well known if you read enough reports – both from the media and our own government. And the change in mission has been advocated by both Republicans and Democrats in and out of government. I don’t claim authorship only conversion to a point of view.

I guess the overarching point is that our divisions are killing us. Someone, somewhere has to reach out and find the common ground so that we can avoid an unmitigated disaster in Iraq. Judging by some of the comments here and elsewhere, I find it difficult to place much faith in that prospect.

ADDENDUM:

You may note that I have avoided the term “victory” when redefining the mission. Since I believe our original mission has already failed, trying to define “victory” would be an exercise in futility. Better to describe the mission as “staving off disaster.” That would be accurate.

I hate writing posts like this. Since I don’t advocate an immediate “turn tail and run” the left climbs all over me. And since I don’t say everything is going swimmingly in Iraq and that we’re on the verge of victory, the right thinks I’m a traitor.

The fact of the matter is, most commenters here and elsewhere on blogs don’t do nuance. Those few (and you know who you are) who carefully read what I write and either agree or disagree to varying degrees, I am most grateful for and therefore, I am dedicating this post to you. Your opinions are the only ones I care about anyway because most of us have made a similar journey with regards to our beliefs and insights into what is going on in Iraq.

Even those of you who started out opposed to the war and who have commented intelligently here by critiquing our strategy and tactics, have caused me to think about where I stand. And of course, those of us who supported the war, still support the mission to varying degrees, but have looked on in frustration and horror as the Bush Administration, the Pentagon, and our generals on the ground in Iraq have made mistake after mistake,blunder after blunder and brought us to where we are now – the edge of the precipice – we all have had our eyes opened and beliefs challenged by practicing a little independent thinking.

I have come to the conclusion over the last few days that, due to domestic conditions here in the US and the inability of the Iraqi government and society to deal in a timely manner with the political problems that must be solved if Iraq is to have a viable, multi-sectarian society the United States is on the verge of suffering a humiliating defeat in Iraq. A perfect storm of almost non-existent public support for our war aims coupled with US pressure on the Iraqis to shoehorn radical changes in their society, their constitution, and their politics into an unrealistic and inevitably, an impossible time frame will ultimately doom our efforts to take any military success achieved via the surge and turn it into progress on the political front.

If we had 3 or 4 years and the political will to maintain troop levels where they are now, then we would have a real chance to make the difference. But our commitment to the military aspects of the surge will be measured in months, not years. By early fall, the race for President will be in full swing and the obvious lack of political progress in Iraq will increase calls for some kind of redeployment – probably from even some Republicans. And it doesn’t appear that the insurgents nor al-Qaeda in Iraq are interested in dialing down their vicious attacks on civilians. They will continue to maximize their attacks, killing as many Iraqis per attack as possible to keep the body count high and the American press fixated on the blood. The continuing large body counts from these attacks will also give the Democrats a ready made benchmark to claim that the surge isn’t working, even if other, less publicized aspects of our strategy are showing signs of success.

This eye opening article that deals exclusively with the political situation in Iraq as it stands now not only rings true but shows how the ticking clock of American involvement may have caused us to overplay our hand in some instances while allowing some elements in Iraqi politics to exploit our vulnerability to the time factor:

U.S. military commanders say a key goal of the ongoing security offensive is to buy time for Iraq’s leaders to reach political benchmarks that can unite its fractured coalition government and persuade insurgents to stop fighting.

But in pressuring the Iraqis to speed up, U.S. officials are encountering a variety of hurdles: The parliament is riven by personality and sect, and some politicians are abandoning Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government. There is deep mistrust of U.S. intentions, especially among Shiites who see American efforts to bring Sunnis into the political process as an attempt to weaken the Shiites’ grip on power.

Many Iraqi politicians view the U.S. pressure as bullying that reminds them they are under occupation. And the security offensive, bolstered by additional U.S. forces, has failed to stop the violence that is widening the sectarian divide.

One of the biggest obstacle appears to be the chicken everyone believed as long ago as the immediate aftermath of the invasion who would eventually come home to roost; the Kurds and their desire for a large degree of autonomy. The Kurds have made no secret of their desire for as much independence as they can get away with, being restrained only by the US desire not to agitate Turkish feelings about the Kurds setting up a separate state. The Kurds appear willing to bide their time until the Americans are no longer a factor in Iraq. This is evident in their opposition to the oil revenue distribution law that was passed by the cabinet back in March but is languishing in Parliament as members wrangle over many of the details:

Politicians from the semiautonomous Kurdish region say measures in the law that would take undeveloped oil fields away from regional governments and have a new national oil company oversee them are unconstitutional.

“Iraq, frankly, does not have the money to invest in oil fields,” said Ashti Hawrami, the Kurdish region’s minister of natural resources. He added that the Kurds are disputing four annexes to the draft law that would dilute their ability to exploit oil in their territory. If the draft isn’t “watered down,” Kurdish regional authorities will not support it, he said.

The Kurds also don’t trust the central government to distribute oil revenue, saying it has been behind in payments in other instances. Some have suggested that a fund be set up outside Iraq to dole out that money. “We are asking for our fair share and guarantees that we will receive it,” Hawrami said.

Sunni Arabs and some secular Shiite politicians, however, stand firm that the central government must control oil production and revenue distribution. “If we want to keep the unity of Iraq, the best way is to keep the oil under the authority of the central government,” said Adnan Pachachi, a secular Sunni with the Iraqi National List party of former prime minister Ayad Allawi.

And the oil revenue law isn’t the only necessary political development that Prime Minister Maliki must address if our current strategy is to achieve the desired results:

“The Americans should take into consideration the Iraqi situation and its complications, not just their own internal politics,” said Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish legislator.

Ten weeks into the security plan, even as U.S. lawmakers propose timelines for a U.S. troop withdrawal, there has been little or no progress in achieving three key political benchmarks set by the Bush administration: new laws governing the sharing of Iraq’s oil resources and allowing many former members of the banned Baath Party to return to their jobs, and amendments to Iraq’s constitution. As divisions widen, a bitter, prolonged legislative struggle is hindering prospects for political reconciliation.

“They are all up in the air,” said Ahmed Chalabi, a secular Shiite who is chairman of Iraq’s Supreme National Commission for De-Baathification. “They are certainly not going to be produced in any timetable that is acceptable within the context of the current political climate in the United States.”

Issue after issue that the Iraqis absolutely must deal with if reconciliation is to have a chance and disaster avoided is being bottled up by political forces with differing agendas and competing interests. Couple that with the mistrust, the hate, and the decades of brutality experienced by the people, and it appears to me that as bravely as our troops are performing now and will no doubt continue to perform, the fact is they are “buying time” for a government that has already decided that our commitment is coming to an end and that all those competing interests will have to make the best deals possible without the Americans.

The problem, is that it is liable to get very bloody once we depart. Michael O’Hanlon from the Brookings Institution:

[I] think [the consequences] would probably beâ€¦the civil war getting anywhere from two to ten times worse in terms of the rate of killing. I think ultimately, the Sunni Arabs would be mostly defeated, and they would essentially be ghettoized in the western part of their country without much oil, very angry at the world, and therefore even more likely to collaborate with al Qaeda. As you know, one of the hopeful things right now is that the Sunni Arabs are not collaborating as much with al Qaeda, and in some cases, fighting them out in al Anbar Province. But I think that dynamic would probably change for the worse, and you would see that region become to some extent a sanctuary for terrorism, and of course, thereâ€™d be a risk of regional war. I donâ€™t know how to score the probabilities on that, but some risk of a greater regional war. And Iraq itself would be in mayhem probably for many years to come, looking sort of like Somalia or maybe the way Afghanistan did in the 80â€™s and 90â€™s. I think thatâ€™s the most likely outcome. You know, Iâ€™m not saying that it would destabilize the entire Persian Gulf, but there would be some chance of a regional war, and a very high chance of genocide inside Iraq.

Is it time then for a Plan B? Can the President and the Democrats lay aside their hostility toward one another and come up with some kind of a strategy that will allow us to continue to fight al-Qaeda while trying to protect the Sunnis from the worst of what surely will be an attempt by many Shias to make Iraq a “Sunni free” country? It seems to me that only our presence in Iraq would prevent Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia and even Jordan from intervening militarily to prevent a slaughter of their co-religionists. That, of course, might draw Shia Iran into the mix and it would be a Middle East free for all.

Time enough for playing the blame game later. After all, we’re still a year and a half away from the 2008 elections – plenty of time for the Democrats to remind voters who got us involved in Iraq in the first place. For now, the imperative is preventing unmitigated disaster. It may involve giving in to the Democrats and withdrawing some of our troops and redeploying some others. Is the President a big enough man to do this? Or is he more in love with his legacy and would therefore resist changing course to reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground and in the councils of government in Iraq?

I have no confidence in either the Democrats or the Administration. Both parties have played politics with the war for so long that now that we have this disaster staring us in the face, it seems ludicrous to think that they could work together in the national interest to avoid the worst of it. And perhaps the absolute best we can hope for at this point; to take our lumps while still being able to keep Iraq from falling apart and descending into chaos while preventing the blood being shed there from spreading outward to affect the rest of the Middle East.

This will not be accomplished without compromise by both parties as well as some extremely frank talk from the President to the American people about the dire straits we find ourselves as a result of the failure of his policies. Only then – and with the help of the Democrats – will it be possible to convince enough of the American people that it is absolutely vital we maintain some kind of presence in Iraq.

So the question ultimately rests with the President and, to a lesser extent with the Democrats; will politics trump the national interest? Will this stiff-necked President who has refused to admit many mistakes in the past be capable of demonstrating such largeness of character?

Following up on yesterday’s post where I criticized Chris Muir for his use of black face to depict Hillary Clinton’s craven pandering to blacks by affecting the cadence and idioms of black language when speaking before an African American audience, I just want to thank Mr. Muir for his comments directed toward me on CQ Radio yesterday. (The relevant portion starts at about 9:50 into the podcast.)

It really wasn’t necessary.

It wasn’t necessary to point out that I’m soused with political correctness for criticizing his use of a symbol that I took great pains to give some historical background on – the use of black face in minstrel shows and how those entertainments shaped white attitudes and ideas toward black culture. Specifically the idea that context sometimes doesn’t matter when using symbols that are particularly hateful and hurtful.

Mr. Muir dismisses this argument out of hand by saying that “thinking people” are smarter than that and that context always trumps being sensitive to how symbols impact others. His statement that “symbols only have the power you give them,” could also apply to specific words like “nigger” (and, one would assume “kike” and “spic.”) He quotes from my piece at Heading Right to illustrate his point:

This is not political correctness per se, although there will be some racialists who would use Mr. Muirâ€™s depiction to advance their own political agenda. Being sensitive to the real feelings of others is always the right thing to do regardless of intent or context.

Note to Chris: “Racialists” is indeed a word. See here and here and here. In another context, it refers to those who use race as a platform to attain a supposed moral superiority, usually in order to shut off debate on issues of political correctness or public policy. I don’t think Jeff Goldstein was the first to use it in that context, but his blog was the first place I saw it used thusly.

Muir takes my quote and says that “it is the very definition of political correctness.” He accuses me of using a “fast, cheap, and easy way to feel superior by assuming that those who are offended are weak and can’t make up their own minds.”

First of all, Muir assumes that the only people offended by black face are blacks. I challenge anyone of any color to watch the film I mentioned in my piece, Holiday Inn, with Bing Crosby singing “Abraham” in black face with his black cook and her son joining in without becoming embarrassed. It is offensive in the extreme as are the 97 other films listed here that use black face in various contexts.

I guess I’m just weak and can’t make up my own mind about these things. Too much listening to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, I guess.

Muir’s first amendment arguments are spot on and I would never advocate banning the use of words or symbols in any way whatsoever. But I will continue to make the argument that yes indeed, there are some symbols and words that are just too offensive, too drenched with a history of repression and violence that the use of them in any context and regardless of intent is just plain wrong.

The history of the Battle of Gettysburg says that the Union won. But the heritage of the battle belongs to the south.

Perhaps not so much today as the cloying grip of mass media has blurred the sectionalism so much responsible for that long ago conflict. But itâ€™s also true that many southerners alive today are just one or two degrees of separation from that time in their history. After all, the last Civil War soldier lived until 1954. Many a southern grandfather can tell stories of long ago Fourth of Julyâ€™s with some of those same boys that trudged up the ridge at Gettysburg, grown old and bent but still proud, marching in parades behind that most distinctive of American symbols.

Distinctive and yes, hurtful. For many Americans, the Confederate Battle Flag represents a hateful system that held human beings as chattel slaves. For them, there is no heritage only history; a shameful chronicle of rape, of whippings, of oppression that colors our politics and culture down to this very day.

My admiration for the Southern soldier and the martial legacy of the Civil War that is so much a part of Southern history nevertheless must take a backseat to the very real pain caused by that “most distinctive of American symbols.” I sincerely hope that one day, we can reach a point in our national life where the Battle Flag can once again be flown, proudly bringing to mind the courage and valor of the Southern soldier. But not now. Not when that symbol has been used to show resistance to federal authority with regards to civil rights and integration.

Political correctness? Or an empathetic response to a hateful symbol? Those of you who read my site on a regular basis know that accusing me of being “politically correct” is pretty baseless. But I think that there are times we conservatives go too far in denigrating the very real and necessary reasons for, lack of a better term, political correctness; that to clutter our national conversation with words and symbols that come with historical baggage from a past where the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were relatively meaningless only serves to keep us separate as a people and gets in the way of uniting us.

It is a shame that the left uses political correctness as a club to score political points and choke off conversation. I would hope that by giving meaning and historical context to these very, very few words and symbols that signify hate and divisiveness in any context, we can elevate the national dialogue and talk about these issues without fear of wounding those who have suffered and continue to suffer from an American past that too often failed to live up to its golden promise of being that “shining city on a hill.”

I love Chris Muir’s laconic take on the days events seen through the eyes of two young, hip couples in his Day by Day cartoons.

But today’s installment may have crossed a line of good taste. I know many of you will disagree with me, but you decide.

Many of you will recall when we conservatives came down hard on Jane Hamsher of Firedog Lake for her photoshopped picture of Joe Lieberman in minstrel make up. It is an unnecessary, hurtful reminder of days past when black people were thought not good enough to share the stage with white people. And to make matters worse, the Minstrel Show itself portrayed blacks in the most nauseatingly, submissive, subservient ways imaginable.

Ever wonder why the black stereotype is so ingrained in American culture? You can thank the wild popularity of the Minstrel shows. For most of the 19th century, these variety shows toured the small towns, big cities, and rural hamlets with whites dressed up in black face and performing song, dance, and skits in a bastardization of how African Americans lived. Watermelon eating, the slow shuffling gait, laziness, the myth that all blacks can dance, and a cloying kind of paternalism that exists down to this day, represented by Hillary Clinton and other liberal Democrats, were staples of Minstrel shows – even later when blacks themselves began to perform in them! Black actors were actually forced to wear black face themselves as part of the “tradition.”

Minstrel shows were often the only “contact” small town and rural white America had with African American culture. The fact that the way that culture was portrayed was so insensitive and depraved is why you rarely see films today that show song and dance numbers with actors in black face. Such numbers were staples of early Hollywood musicals as were rancid portrayals of blacks in general.

One of the more beloved holiday movies of all time, Holiday Inn, which starred Bing Crosby, Fred Astaire, with a nice turn by Cesar Romero as Astaire’s conniving agent has not been seen on over the air TV for many years due to a black face number. There is just something so embarrassing about watching white people acting out black stereotypes that one wants to turn away or change the channel. It is a painful reminder of how things used to be in America – a shameful legacy that to this day we are trying to overcome.

Muir makes a living going to the edge. That’s what good cartoonists do. But putting anyone in black face cannot be seen as anything except out of bounds for decent society. We conservatives said as much following Jane Hamsher’s extraordinary Lieberman slur. And we should say the same about Mr. Muir and his idea of humor.

Okay…have at me in the comments.

UPDATE

Just Barking Mad gets it right with regards to Hillary and the Dems attitude toward race:

The question is whether this is the famous Clinton Chameleon ability or the more subtle racism of seeing people, as Muirâ€™s Damon says, as a group and not as individuals. I donâ€™t think that Ms. Clinton is a racist like the Kluxers of old (did someone say Robert Byrd?) but she is the new racist, the kind that sees blocs of voters as targets to be pandered to, instead of individuals. Hence her speaking to an audience like it was full of Aunt Jemimas and Steppin Fetchits.

I don’t want to put words in Mr. JBM’s mouth but it appears that he is justifying Muir’s use of black face to highlight this pandering to the group (and by extension, recognizing stereotypes) by Hillary. (A point made by long time commenter BD in the comments.)

Okay, I’ll buy that. But is there another way – a less hurtful, more sensitive way – it could have been done? My argument is not that Muir’s context was off it is that black face as a negative cultural icon is always wrong – as much as showing a burning cross.

UPDATE II

I have been called a “misogynist” and “sexist” by Jon Swift and TBogg for using the old Saturday Night Live comeback by Dan Akroyd to Jane Curtain during their “Point/Counterpoint” skits where Akroyd (impersonating the old conservative Richmond Times Dispatch columnist James Kirkpatrick whose 60 Minutes segment with liberal columnist Shana Alexander was being parodied) would begin his response to Curtain’s reasoned argument with “Jane, you ignorant slut.”

I don’t know how old either of those two gentlemen are, (although I heard a rumor that TBogg may be up for his learners permit any day now), but I apologize if the cultural reference was a little dated. Of course I don’t know if Hamsher is a slut or not. However, “ignorant” fits her to a tee as most reasonable people would agree.

I had the great pleasure of appearing on Ed Morrissey’s Blog Talk Radio show “CQ Radio” yesterday to discuss this new venture as well as the launching of a new conservative blog featuring BTR hosts.

You can access the podcast of the show here. One piece of earth shattering news that emerged from that show yesterday was that Ed will be featured as a character in a new novel set for publication this summer by a friend of Mr. Morrissey. This in and of itself would not be news. What makes it interesting is that the character will be a “bad guy.” And if the author honors Ed’s request, he will be portrayed as a evil villain.

I put it to you, friends. Ed Morrissey, Christian gentleman, as a latter day Moriarty? The world may stop spinning for such a development.

Ed also talked about a brand new blog associated with BTR called Heading Right. The concept is to feature as many conservative talk show hosts who wish to participate posting items of interest and carrying on conversations about the issues of the day a la The Corner. It’s a great idea and I plan on having a lot of fun with it. (Will I be the first person banned from participating? Stay tuned.)

Okay…just kidding.

Make sure you bookmark Heading Right and check back a couple of times a day. We should have some lively discussions with both readers and other bloggers.

And don’t forget to check out my podcast from last Tuesday’s show with Clarice Feldman of The American Thinker where she stoutly defends Alberto Gonzalez from both Republicans and Democrats.

If I were George Bush right about now, I’d wrap my arms around Harry Reid and give him a great big kiss on the cheek. And I might even consider sending Speaker Pelosi a dozen roses, thanking her for playing her part to perfection in this Democratic Party defeatist extravaganza. For in truth, the Democrats are handing the President the one thing he desperately needed in order to maintain the surge, veto the Iraq supplemental with its timetables and withdrawal stipulations, and unite the Republicans as they haven’t been since the election last November; a political club with which to beat his opponents and re-energize support for the war among his base.

It’s been a while since Bush was presented with such a gift. In previous months, the Democrats played the Iraq card with great care and skill, not getting too much out in front of the American people while maintaining support for their position by framing the debate as one of “altering course” rather than cut and run. They successfully portrayed the President as intransigent on changing strategy. And, of course, the Democrats were helped enormously by the constant drumbeat of negativity regarding the surge as a result of several high profile, horrific bombings with large civilian death tolls.

As an aside, in one of the great historical ironies of all time, the very same elements in the media and on the left that took the Pentagon to task 40 years ago for harping on enemy body counts to show progress in the Viet Nam War now confidently use body counts to show that the surge supposedly isn’t working.

C’est la vie! C’est la guerre!

There’s little doubt that Bush was on the defensive when it came to the Iraq supplemental. While his veto would have been upheld anyway, Harry Reid and his assessment that the war is already lost as well as Nancy Pelosi’s refusal to meet with the Commanding General in Iraq for a briefing has changed the dynamic of the debate over the war, giving the Administration a juicy opening with which to skewer the opposition.

Pelosi’s gaffe is mind boggling. Being able to find time to meet and drink tea with the Syrian thug President Assad but brushing off a briefing with America’s own Iraq Commander General Petraeus is a juxtaposition of priorities that is too delicious not to use. The idea that the defeatists are living a variation of the Three Wise Monkeys by “seeing no progress, hearing no progress, and speaking no progress” when it comes to Iraq reveals a nervousness about some of the news that is breaking through all the stories about car bombings and suicide attacks, which are down in number but not much in the casualties; the fact that some of the indicators regarding the violence are improving less than 3 months into the surge.

In truth, the Democrats and the left have already left the surge for dead. No matter what news comes out of Iraq, the Democrats will spin it to prove that the strategy is not working. Unfortunately, this will be relatively easy to do since the insurgents and terrorists are very obliging in working hand in hand with the defeatists in Congress to undermine the President’s strategy by getting as big a bang for their buck with each brutal attack on innocent civilians as they can.

Of course, other elements of the new strategy not totally dependent on the military are showing signs of success. The reconstruction teams whose numbers have doubled and who have already begun working with tribal leaders to turn the tide in Anbar Province have met with many small but significant successes. This is reflected in a growing realization by Sunnis that they are likely to get a better political deal if the Americans stay rather than if our troops are withdrawn, leaving them in the lurch:

Meanwhile, opponents of the Iraqi operations back in the United States are getting nervous about the success of the security operations in Baghdad and its suburbs. The fact that nearly all the Sunni Arab tribes have joined the government is seen as a political disaster by many U.S. politicians who have declared Iraq a failed venture for the United States. It’s a bizarre situation, and long has been. You only have to visit web sites frequented by Iraqis or American troops, to see that what is reported in most of the media about Iraq is invented, or distorted beyond all reason into an alternate reality.

This “alternate reality” lived in by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is aided and abetted by a compliant news media who appears to be too lazy to balance coverage of bloody body counts with other aspects of the surge that show some signs of progress. The Iraqi army appears to be making significant strides in helping to police Baghdad. And there is a slow process underway to purge many police units of some of the worst elements who enable the sectarian death squads to carry out their murderous rampages or who are killers themselves.

Taken as a whole, some aspects of the surge are working better than others. But even the most caustic observer – and I include myself in that company – would have to agree that there are definite signs that we are not “losing” the war and may, in fact, be nearer to a modest success than anyone realizes.

Much will depend on the actions of Prime Minister Maliki and his government. How committed are they to a truly multi-sectarian, multi-ethnic Iraq? Can they resist the influence of Iranian backed militias and political parties? Will the Shias ever agree to share power with the Sunnis?

These are questions that will not be answered by any actions taken by the US military. But how Maliki deals with them will determine whether or not our strategy is successful.

All of that lies in the future. For now, Harry Reid has a problem. His defeatist words are still ricocheting around the internet and cable news, refusing to disappear down the usual rabbit hole where Democratic faux pas are quietly sent by the media. Instead, those words have energized the pro-war crowd and angered many of the troops. Is it any wonder? When the news organ of the enemy – al-Jazeera - makes your defeatist words headline material, one wonders what else might define the crime of “giving aid and comfort to the enemy?”

But Reid and the Democrats don’t seem to care at this point. Since they have never seen the Iraq War as anything except a political weapon to be used against the President and the Republicans, their cold calculations with regards to handing President Bush and by extension, the United States a defeat don’t need to be buttressed by any kind of nonsense about “supporting the troops.” Their platitudes about caring about our men and women under arms rings rather hollow when the second most powerful Democrat in Washington tells them they’re a bunch of losers – that all their efforts, the blood they’ve spilled, the sacrifices they’ve made, have been in vain.

This won’t be a turning point in the war. But like Admiral Farragut capturing Mobile Bay when the Civil War was at its absolute nadir in August of 1864, Reid’s words have actually heartened the President’s remaining supporters in that they have given them a political opening to portray the Democrats as exactly what they pretend not to be; a party that would rather lose a war than acknowledge any progress toward success in Iraq.

If you’ve been trying to access The American Thinker website for your daily dose of rational, well written conservative thought, you’ve probably discovered that the domain has changed hands and a “parking” domain has taken over.

Not quite sure what the problem is but in an email from AT’s editor Tom Lifson, it seems to have something to do with the domain registration and the company responsible for registration with ICANN. Thanos at Noblesse Oblige has more:

Iâ€™m not sure whatâ€™s going on at American Thinker, but apparently thereâ€™s a mistake over the Domain, or some outright hijacking. If you go there you will hit an â€œall ad siteâ€. Earlier someone was able to get through and saw this post, I have only a partial quote from a post by Andrew (sic) Lifson I assume:

American Thinker Blog
Please stand by
April 24, 2007
Some readers have had or will have difficulty reaching our website over the next few days. Our control over our domain has been affected by the error of another company. We are working to fully resolve the problem. Please bearâ€¦

Unfortunately I donâ€™t have the rest of it…

As a contributor to that excellent site, I hope that Tom can resolve the situation quickly and get his baby up and running again. And as a daily reader, I miss the insight and intelligence offered up by what I believe to be the finest E-Zine on the net, much superior to anything on the left and rivaling any of the conservative on line magazines like NRO or Weekly Standard on the right.

“If it was good enough for your daddy/granddaddy’s war it’s good enough for yours,” seems to be what the Pentagon is saying with regards to trying to hype the accomplishments of Pat Tillman – whose character assassination by the left continues to this day – and Jessica Lynch, the young woman whose convoy was ambushed resulting in severe injuries and her capture by the Iraqis.

The problem is times have changed and trying to manufacture heroes for public admiration and to build support for military action has long since outlived its usefulness, not to mention that the tactic has fallen victim to an ever more intrusive and curious press whose sympathies cannot be counted on to cover up the truth when what really occurs on the battlefield comes to light.

That last is especially relevant in Tillman’s case where higher ups evidently tried to enlist Tillman’s comrades in a scheme to suppress the truth about his death by friendly fire:

The last soldier to see Army Ranger Pat Tillman alive, Spc. Bryan O’Neal, told lawmakers that he was warned by superiors not to divulge—especially to the Tillman family—that a fellow soldier killed Tillman.

O’Neal particularly wanted to tell fellow soldier Kevin Tillman, who was in the convoy traveling behind his brother at the time of the 2004 incident in Afghanistan.

“I wanted right off the bat to let the family know what had happened, especially Kevin, because I worked with him in a platoon and I knew that he and the family all needed to know what had happened,” O’Neal testified. “I was quite appalled that when I was actually able to speak with Kevin, I was ordered not to tell him.”

Asked who gave him the order, O’Neal replied that it came from his battalion commander, then-Lt. Col. Jeff Bailey.

“He basically just said … ‘Do not let Kevin know, that he’s probably in a bad place knowing his brother’s dead,’ ” O’Neal told House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman. “And he made it known I would get in trouble, sir, if I spoke with Kevin on it being fratricide.”

How Tillman’s commanding officer and higher ups in the Pentagon thought they could keep secret the circumstances surrounding the young man’s death is indicative of a military mindset not attuned to the times we live in. The fact that Pat Tillman was a high profile enlistee and that his death would generate intense scrutiny seems to have escaped the mossbacks and pencil pushers in the Pentagon who only saw propaganda gold when viewing Tillman’s death. A similar denseness captivated the officers and higher ups at the Pentagon when Jessica Lynch was rescued. The young woman was made into a “Little Girl Rambo” according to Ms. Lynch herself:

The former US private Jessica Lynch today condemned what she said were Pentagon efforts to turn her into a “little girl Rambo”, and accused military chiefs of using “elaborate tales” to try to make her into a hero of the Iraq war.

Speaking at a congressional hearing on the use of misleading information, an emotional Ms Lynch described how she suffered horrific injuries when her vehicle was hit by a rocket near the Iraqi town of Nasiriya in March 2003, killing several of her companions.

The Pentagon initially put out the story that Private Lynch – a slight woman who was just 19 at the time – had been wounded by Iraqi gunfire but kept fighting until her ammunition ran out. In fact, her gun had jammed and she did not fire a shot.

Pat Tillman was a hero not because of how he died but because of how he lived, eschewing a huge contract with the Arizona Cardinals of the NFL to enlist following 9/11. And Jessica Lynch’s heroism is the heroism of hundreds of thousands of young Americans who have answered the call to serve a purpose higher than themselves and enlist in the US armed forces. She also endured her injuries and capture with a singular stoicism while remaining true to her fallen friends and comrades in arms.

Isn’t this enough for the myth makers in the Pentagon? The American people today are much more sophisticated and skeptical than their counterparts who manned the homefront during World War II and Korea. Viet Nam saw to that. Aided by a skeptical and at times, openly hostile press, we look upon military pronouncements about the war with a cynicism born of experience and leavened by pundits and talking heads who tear into the information coming from the military using as a baseline the idea that nothing that comes from the Pentagon can be believed.

This situation was not helped by Rumsfeld’s rosy scenarios and “the glass is half full” press conferences. It drove many of us who support the war absolutely bonkers to hear the former Defense Secretary or the Vice President (“last throes,” anyone?) give briefings that bore little resemblance to the worsening situation in Baghdad and Anbar province not to mention downplaying the numbers of insurgents, the infiltration of the militias into the police and military, the Interior Ministry death squads and secret torture chambers, and a host of other “glass half empty” benchmarks that, while certainly not good news, would have given the American people a more complete picture of what was going on in Iraq.

The point that propaganda doesn’t work anymore – not in the current atmosphere of press scrutiny and suspicion – seems to be lost on the Pentagon officials who tried to pump up the circumstances surrounding the death of Pat Tillman and rescue of Jessica Lynch. They are living in the past if they believe they can get away with it. And the hell of it is, it besmirches the life and yes, legend of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch; two Americans who were simply answering the call to serve and fulfilled their obligations with a startling devotion to duty and their country.

I sincerely hope the Pentagon has learned a lesson from this very public and humiliating expose of their PR machinations. Perhaps they could highlight the very real and unbelievable heroism of people like Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Monsoor who threw himself on a live grenade and died saving his comrades. Or the 19 Navy SEALs and Special Operation Aviation Regiment (SOAR) members who lost their lives on a rescue mission in Afghanistan. Or any of the countless other Americans, living and dead, who have honored the flag, their comrades, and their country by sacrificing so much in the cause of freedom.

There is no question that the initial misreporting of the circumstances of Tillman’s death was stupid and improper. The claim of a government conspiracy to cover up the facts, however, is ludicrous. If you read the fine print in the article linked above, you find that Tillman died on April 22, 2004. His family was told that the cause was friendly fire on May 29, 2004, barely a month later. The same day, the Army publicly announced that friendly fire was the apparent cause.

So once the facts became clear and the matter rose to a level above the commanders in the field, the Army publicized the result of its investigation. For the Democrats and Kevin Tillman to try to make political hay out of this one-month delay, three years after the fact, casts them in a worse light than it does the Army.

Conspiracy? Perhaps too strong a word. But the fact that there is direct testimony from one of Tillman’s comrades that he was told not to divulge the circumstances surrounding Tillman’s death in the immediate aftermath of the incident is telling indeed. And the fact that both Tillman’s commanding officer and higher ups in the chain of command knew right away that Tillman’s death was due to friendly fire calls into question the 5 week delay in giving Tillman’s family the truth.

I don’t care about Kevin Tillman’s politics (which were radicalized by this incident, him being a conservative prior to the death of his brother) but I sure would be angry if I had to wait 5 weeks to find out the truth about my brother’s death.